Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion on Presidential and Governor Powers
The Supreme Court recently concluded hearings and reserved its opinion on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu regarding the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills. This arises from a previous ruling that deemed Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's delay unconstitutional.
Context and Legal Framework
- Article 142: Allows the Supreme Court to exercise its inherent powers to grant assent to pending Bills and set timelines for Governors and the President.
- Article 143(1): Empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on significant legal or factual questions.
- The court's opinion will serve as independent advice to guide the President's actions.
Major Issues at Stake
This case is a significant test of judicial review limits, examining the boundaries between judicial and executive powers, and addressing federalism concerns.
Arguments and Counterarguments
The discussion spanned over 11 days, focusing on several critical points:
- Nature of Reference:
- The Court can decline to give its opinion, as seen in two previous instances.
- States argue the reference is an appeal under the guise of a Presidential reference and should be rejected.
- Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi claimed this was to undermine the Court’s integrity and stare decisis.
- Role and Powers of Governors:
- States assert Governors should act on the advice of the state's Council of Ministers as per Article 163.
- The Centre counters, emphasizing the Governor's discretionary powers as a check against the state legislature.
- Example: A 2004 Punjab law was cited, showcasing the need for Governor discretion.
- Judicial Enforcement of Timelines:
- The Centre objects to the SC's April ruling setting timelines, viewing it as constitutional overreach.
- It argues that such matters should be politically resolved rather than judicially enforced.
- States advocate for a "sense of immediacy" in the Governor’s duties and support judicial review timelines.
- States' Fundamental Rights:
- The Centre challenges the SC's April ruling allowing states to file writs under Article 32, arguing it’s meant for enforcing fundamental rights, not state claims.
- States, including Andhra Pradesh, defended their right to petition, emphasizing Governors as a crucial link between the union and state.
